Out of nowhere Monday afternoon, a brief update about the massive parking garage currently under construction at Dallas Love Field turned into breaking news about a possible "people mover" connecting the airport with at least one Dallas Area Rapid Transit light-rail station.

Mark Duebner, head of Dallas' Aviation Department, mentioned it in passing to the Dallas City Council's Budget, Finance and Audit Committee when asked, as he often is, about the possibility of one day bringing light rail to Love.

Runway 18-36 near Denton Drive, which was closed in 2011 as part of the Love Field Modernization Program, will be eliminated in January. The former crosswind runway will reconfigured as a taxiway once it's finally taken off line early next year.

And when that happens, Duebner said, "it allows us greater flexibility for what we can do on the north end of the airport."

I would ride that just for fun! What a view one of these would have from SWAirlines Dart station (aka Burbank) to the terminal!

Love Field is busy building car garages, and I understand that even if the need ends up being short term, and the lobby for International flights and more gates must a critical mandate for the city.... but the need to recreate the built environment at Love Field is possibly the one initiative that's unrestrained by politics and the like.

Having worked at the airport long enough, there are plans to do a few things to the facility. One is a concept to extend runway 31R/13L out over Bachman Lake and partly over NW Highway to accommodate larger planes. DO NOT ask me how that even seem feasible. Another, and one that is probably a touch more realistic, is to build another entry way from the north from Lemmon and ride underground and come above where the current A & B garages are. Lastly, consolidate the rental facilities into a single garage and perhaps redevelop part of the spaces into an on-property hotel.

I do not see anything feasible, with the exception of a consolidated rental facility, because where would the city cough up the dough?

Building some sort of people mover from the terminal to Bachman Station seems inevitable, but I really don't understand why all the concepts are in a tunnel. Is that to make the trip time the shortest possible?

The view of downtown from Love Field is excellent and would be a big bonus for airport if part of the trip for train-plane travelers. Elevated people mover is probably less expensive than a tunnel, and could be a motivating component to redevelopable land on Denton Drive.

Building some sort of people mover from the terminal to Bachman Station seems inevitable, but I really don't understand why all the concepts are in a tunnel. Is that to make the trip time the shortest possible?

The view of downtown from Love Field is excellent and would be a big bonus for airport if part of the trip for train-plane travelers. Elevated people mover is probably less expensive than a tunnel, and could be a motivating component to redevelopable land on Denton Drive.

Delta can stay at Dallas Love Field, at least temporarily, despite Southwest Airlines’ attempt to jettison its rival carrier from the booming airport, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling upheld a district court injunction that blocked Dallas-based Southwest (NYSE: LUV) from booting Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) while the case moves to trial.

The number of boardings alone has grown from 4.9 million in 2014 to 7.3 million in 2015 and 7.9 million last year. That’s still roughly a fourth of the approximately 33 million boardings at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, but that’s exactly the way city leaders and airport officials want it, so as to protect the economic engine that DFW Airport is for the region.

...The filing is the latest in a long-running dispute between Southwest, Delta and the city over access to the limited space at city-owned Love Field, which is capped at 20 gates under the terms of the Wright Amendment Reform Act.

...While the number of affected flights — five per day — is small, the restrictions make Love Field’s gate space some of the most valuable real estate in U.S. airports.

...After two years, there’s still no end in sight for the case, barring a settlement ... as the case returns to North Texas District Court ...in... February 2019.

Who is using the Virgin America gates today?Can’t Delta negotiate with them and leave Southwest alone?

Additionally, it was Dallas that pushed for the 20 gate limit, there will never be more than 20 gates at Love Field if Dallas never builds more. Almighty god can grant Love Field permission and cash to build more gates, but that doesn’t mean Dallas will spend the money to actually build more gates.

1. Virgin was acquired by Alaska, and Alaska and has already begun the process of converting the schedule over to Alaska jets and destinations. The two airlines will be under one operating certificate in a few months and Virgin will cease to exist shortly thereafter.

2. I think the City is actively trying to come up with a solution now that this thing has dragged out in the courts. Right now there is more capacity in the Alaska gates than there is in the Southwest gates, but since its tied up in court, its gone nowhere. The City should have made arrangements a couple of years ago but defaulted making decisions to the courts.

3. The airport is prohibited by Federal Law from going beyond 20 gates, or from flying international. New federal law will have to be passed in order for that to change, regardless of what the City wants.

And honestly, not sure how the airport could handle anything beyond 20 gates without massive infrastructure improvements.

* A new garage is going in JUST to support the flood of new passengers, way beyond what was expected. There would need to be additional parking built, where would it go??* The entrance into the airport on Cedar Springs is already insufficient, you'd have to build out an additional entrance on the northwest side of the airport. * Expansion of the terminal concourses/gates is problematic. The easiest area to expand has already been taken by the new garage. * Vehicular traffic outside the terminal for departures and arrivals is already an ever living mess.* The main terminal and baggage claim are not built out for more than what they are supporting now. It is already pretty tight in there. A 50% increase in passengers would require expansion of both.

All to say, if you want to expand to a number of gates that would be worth the effort of expanding, say to 30 gates, you'd have to spend multiple billions on the entire property. Some of that billions would probably make sense to build a people mover to Burbank Station. The rest of it would have to go to the above and much much more...

A somewhat similar example to Love Field would be Chicago Midway (coincidentally another fortress hub for SWA). Very dense area using less surface area with only Cicero Ave being the main way in and out of the airport. Hell it's so tightly packed the TSA checkpoint is on a bridge over the 6 lane road. It has 7 million more passengers a year than Love Field and has 43 gates. They do fine, and it is one crazy busy place every time I fly through there.

Dallas should purchase the closed down DalFort Aerospace hanger on the north side of the field and build more parking/terminal there.

The whole eastern edge of the airport, flanking Lemmon Ave needs a complete redo. Access the terminal via underground moving sidewalk from the Flight Museum and from whatever that renovation project Lemmon@Lovers... This is where parking, office, hotel, restaurants and much of the aerotropolis stuff should go that will help pay for the rest of the airport improvements.

Dallas should purchase the closed down DalFort Aerospace hanger on the north side of the field and build more parking/terminal there.

Isn't someone fixing that place up? turning it into something unique-ish? oh wait, it's the building next to that, historic in nature, that's been tagged for update and refresh for a decade or so....

Hannibal Lecter wrote:The airport used to have over 70 gates. It property certainly handle more than 20.

Sure it had 70 gates, but number of passengers in and out of the airport was nowhere near what it is today

"1973 saw Love Field, which had more than 70 gates and saw frequent Boeing 747 service, reach record enplanements at 6,668,398 as the eighth busiest airport in the United States. On January 13, 1974, DFW Airport opened, ending most passenger service at Love Field." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Love_Field

So Love Field is seeing 1.2 million more enplanements per year in 2016 than it did in it's 1973 heyday. Total Traffic (enplanements plus deplanements) is pushing 16 million. They are doing more with 20 gates than they ever did with 70 gates.

tamtagon wrote:The whole eastern edge of the airport, flanking Lemmon Ave needs a complete redo. Access the terminal via underground moving sidewalk from the Flight Museum and from whatever that renovation project Lemmon@Lovers... This is where parking, office, hotel, restaurants and much of the aerotropolis stuff should go that will help pay for the rest of the airport improvements.

With tunnels under the runway, the Northeast Flank could be used for Parking, for sure. You possibly could extend the sterile area there and do baggage check-in and TSA Security there, but that would require significant changes in baggage handling as well.

But the Northeast flank of the airport doesn't address the size/number of the concourse/gates, baggage claim, passenger pick up and drop in front of the terminal, and a bunch of other considerations. You push this airport to 30 gates, it will easily be pushing 11 million enplanements.

flyswatter wrote:A somewhat similar example to Love Field would be Chicago Midway (coincidentally another fortress hub for SWA). Very dense area using less surface area with only Cicero Ave being the main way in and out of the airport. Hell it's so tightly packed the TSA checkpoint is on a bridge over the 6 lane road. It has 7 million more passengers a year than Love Field and has 43 gates. They do fine, and it is one crazy busy place every time I fly through there.

Agree that Midway is a super busy airport, but to give you an idea of what Love Field is doing with 20 gates, here is some data for you...

In 2016, Chicago Midway enplaned 10.4 million passengers out of 43 gates. Love Field enplaned 7.8 million out of 20 gates. Let that sink in. You look at this chart and see the airports close to Love in regards to traffic...Portland has 60 gates. Lambert-St.Louis has ~ 65 gates.

Last thing and I'll lay off...also remember that in 2017, Southwest retired 100 or so jets with 122 and 137 seats, a large percentage of those 733s and 735s were flying routes out of DAL. Now there is nothing but 143 and 175 seat jets flying out of Love, and the 175 seat fleet is the only type that will see growth going forward.

Meaning, even with the same schedule, and same number of gates, you can expect somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% growth between now and say 2019 2020. Not to mention what Alaska ends up doing, they should be busier than Virgin was out of their 2 gates. 9 Million enplanements is a possibility in 2020 just based on seats and the AS-VX Merger. That's nuts. 20 gates, 9 million pax. Unprecendented.

Was just by there over the weekend.... the C parking garage has topped off, the cranes are gone, and there are parking lot lights installed on top and they are lit. It's not easy to tell from Herb Kelleher Way how much more needs to be done, but the garage was predicted to be done by June this year, at first, then later that date was pushed to October of this year, according to https://www.dallasnews.com/business/lov ... g-oct-2018

There will be ~5000 more parking spaces with the third garage, putting total garage parking at ~12,000 spaces at the airport (not counting the spaces of non-airport operators of parking lots). The garage will have 9 total levels, 2 below ground level for valet parkers, while other parkers will have the other 7 levels above ground to use. A parking management system (likely similar to that installed in the garages at DFW) will be part of the structure, as well as a skybridge which will connect to the terminal directly from the garage without travelers interacting with weather or busy driveway traffic. Looks like the only way to drive in/out will be by way of Aviation Place, the angled turnoff that leads to the Cargo handling area.

If the schedule quoted in the article ends up correct (or better) as to garage completion, that will mean availability for traffic during the busy Thanksgiving-to-New Year's travel season...and hopefully be enough spots for most that come to Love Field by driving.

Southwest may be trying to turn the heat up on Dallas/Delta and adding 15 (!) new daily flights out of Love Field. 195 daily departures. They struggle quite a bit with the current operation, especially early in the morning, so this will be very interesting to watch.

Officials are looking into the possibility of a north entrance at Love Field, but stop short of what kind of routing they're thinking of.

I'm not sure how you have a north entrance at an airport where all the infrastructure (besides private hangars and FBOs that face Lemmon) faces Mockingbird and the Herb Kelleher Way entry drive. If Love had been built/oriented like DFW, I could see having a north entrance.

Interesting proposal. I think the hardest part will be bridging Bachman lake. The road could be surface grade through most of the airport property and would just need to sneak underground for 1 or 2 taxi way alignments.

I don't think the orientation of the new terminal building a huge deal as the northern entrance route could dump straight into the one-way southeast bound traffic loop on the 'back' side of the parking garage. People would then just have to make a u-turn through a hopefully upgraded u-turn lane.

homeworld1031tx wrote:Interesting proposal. I think the hardest part will be bridging Bachman lake. The road could be surface grade through most of the airport property and would just need to sneak underground for 1 or 2 taxi way alignments.

I don't think the orientation of the new terminal building a huge deal as the northern entrance route could dump straight into the one-way southeast bound traffic loop on the 'back' side of the parking garage. People would then just have to make a u-turn through a hopefully upgraded u-turn lane.

But that whole U-turn dealio seems to be the worst part, right? I mean, it's definitely worse than Mockingbird and the main airport road itself. But, maybe they're okay with that... ?

But, I do agree that what you mentioned would be the 'simplest' way of going about it.

By the way... Are those actual houses on Shorecrest, just in between the ends of the runways? lol

Matt777 wrote:A good public transport link would reduce the amount of Uber/Lyft cars going in and out of the airport. Just saying!!!

Which is why building the people mover system to Burbank and SW Headquarters makes sense. SW employees can either park out there or ride DART and then take the people mover to the terminal. Airline passengers would also have the better transit connection with DART as well.Dallas taxpayers have spent a lot of money recently improving Love Field, I'm not thinking they have spent all yet. It's been accomplished in phases, and the people mover phase is just starting....

Matt777 wrote:A good public transport link would reduce the amount of Uber/Lyft cars going in and out of the airport. Just saying!!!

Which is why building the people mover system to Burbank and SW Headquarters makes sense. SW employees can either park out there or ride DART and then take the people mover to the terminal. Airline passengers would also have the better transit connection with DART as well.Dallas taxpayers have spent a lot of money recently improving Love Field, I'm not thinking they have spent all yet. It's been accomplished in phases, and the people mover phase is just starting....

Not to mention... If the people mover is done right, they could also put a designated ride-share/kiss & ride car loop by the station. That could certainly alleviate some of the traffic on Mockingbird and around the terminals.

Matt777 wrote:A good public transport link would reduce the amount of Uber/Lyft cars going in and out of the airport. Just saying!!!

Which is why building the people mover system to Burbank and SW Headquarters makes sense. SW employees can either park out there or ride DART and then take the people mover to the terminal. Airline passengers would also have the better transit connection with DART as well.Dallas taxpayers have spent a lot of money recently improving Love Field, I'm not thinking they have spent all yet. It's been accomplished in phases, and the people mover phase is just starting....

Yes, the people mover would be incredible for many parties, as we have all been talking about for years. I'm not aware that anything has moved forward with it over the past several years it has been thrown around. Can you correct me if I'm wrong?

Matt777 wrote:A good public transport link would reduce the amount of Uber/Lyft cars going in and out of the airport. Just saying!!!

Which is why building the people mover system to Burbank and SW Headquarters makes sense. SW employees can either park out there or ride DART and then take the people mover to the terminal. Airline passengers would also have the better transit connection with DART as well.Dallas taxpayers have spent a lot of money recently improving Love Field, I'm not thinking they have spent all yet. It's been accomplished in phases, and the people mover phase is just starting....

Yes, the people mover would be incredible for many parties, as we have all been talking about for years. I'm not aware that anything has moved forward with it over the past several years it has been thrown around. Can you correct me if I'm wrong?

I was agreeing with my reply to an earlier post made by someone else about a good transit link. I believe it is a much better and a much cheaper option than tunneling a road under Love Field from the north to the south. Just the width of the tunnels along would make it cheaper, not include the much larger ventilation a car and truck tunnel would require to remove all the toxic exhaust gases emitted from them.

I wish Dallas had kept the original DFW people mover vehicles around, because while they are much slower than what is used now, they would be fast enough and make a great choice at Love Field. Imagine all the cash that could have been saved if the City had kept all the vehicles and control panels guts in storage, vs buying an all brand new system.

If Love Field needs more accessibilty, connecting to the Green and Orange Lines is a much better option

An updated master plan awaiting council approval includes a proposal for a diamond interchange at the airport's existing entrance, which would send through traffic on Mockingbird Lane into a tunnel to avoid the Cedar Springs intersection.

Preliminary estimates put the cost of the Mockingbird proposal in the range of $70 million compared with around $50 million for the north entrance, Duebner told the council committee Monday. The Mockingbird entrance would also run into challenges from below-ground utilities and above-ground height restrictions imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration, he said.

It just seems like they could do a lot by focusing on building a large drop off area at the north that carries people easily to the terminal. Some people are always going to want the simplest option and in DFW that will always be their own or a friend drop them off in the front of the terminal. Changing to a bus is a hassle for many travelers. They will gladly pay an Uber to avoid a transit option. You need something that is smooth to roll luggage onto and off without feeling like you are making a traveling senior citizen pick up a huge suitcase. If you make it that smooth of a transition to where the access to the terminal is a forgotten ease then you will get people to use a transit like connection.

electricron wrote:I wish Dallas had kept the original DFW people mover vehicles around, because while they are much slower than what is used now, they would be fast enough and make a great choice at Love Field. Imagine all the cash that could have been saved if the City had kept all the vehicles and control panels guts in storage, vs buying an all brand new system.

While I very much wish they had kept that system going at DFW for streetside transfers between terminals, it really was past it's end-of-life. They were spending a fortune scrounging for or custom fabricating components that haven't been manufactured in 20 or 30 years.

Even if DFW had just given it to DAL (their arch competitor ) the cost of keeping them running would have quickly exceeded the cost of purchasing a modern system. Sometimes it really is cheaper to just buy new.

Is there any evidence that adding a people mover is going to increase usage? I'm not even talking about increasing it enough to justify the cost -- that's beyond pie-in-the-sky. Let's be realistic: how many people are there really who don't rider DART to Love Field now that would start just because there was a people mover?

Here's something to keep in mind: The latest numbers I can find show the Inwood station with an average daily ridership of 393 (those numbers are pretty old, but are probably on the high side since rail system ridership has declined since them). Let's be generous and say that 75% of those are going to the airport (unlikely). That's roughly 300 people per day, or less than 30 an hour. At an average of 2 people/car, that's about 12 cars/hour that aren't going to Love Field because of the rail system.

So if you spend $100 million on a people mover to double the number of folks using rail to get to Love Field, you're at best taking 12 cars an hour out of the airport.

Hannibal Lecter wrote:Is there any evidence that adding a people mover is going to increase usage? I'm not even talking about increasing it enough to justify the cost -- that's beyond pie-in-the-sky. Let's be realistic: how many people are there really who don't rider DART to Love Field now that would start just because there was a people mover?

Here's something to keep in mind: The latest numbers I can find show the Inwood station with an average daily ridership of 393 (those numbers are pretty old, but are probably on the high side since rail system ridership has declined since them). Let's be generous and say that 75% of those are going to the airport (unlikely). That's roughly 300 people per day, or less than 30 an hour. At an average of 2 people/car, that's about 12 cars/hour that aren't going to Love Field because of the rail system.

So if you spend $100 million on a people mover to double the number of folks using rail to get to Love Field, you're at best taking 12 cars an hour out of the airport.

My suggestion was that the people mover would have less to do with DART, and more to do with a portal for Rideshare, kiss & ride, and SWA Employees. Having it adjacent to the DART station is just an added bonus. But the three previously mentioned modes of access would do more to alleviate traffic directly at the terminal than DART itself would.It just seems more effective than simply adding more roads from the Northwest Highway side... and possibly cheaper.

Hannibal Lecter wrote:Is there any evidence that adding a people mover is going to increase usage? I'm not even talking about increasing it enough to justify the cost -- that's beyond pie-in-the-sky. Let's be realistic: how many people are there really who don't rider DART to Love Field now that would start just because there was a people mover?

Here's something to keep in mind: The latest numbers I can find show the Inwood station with an average daily ridership of 393 (those numbers are pretty old, but are probably on the high side since rail system ridership has declined since them). Let's be generous and say that 75% of those are going to the airport (unlikely). That's roughly 300 people per day, or less than 30 an hour. At an average of 2 people/car, that's about 12 cars/hour that aren't going to Love Field because of the rail system.

So if you spend $100 million on a people mover to double the number of folks using rail to get to Love Field, you're at best taking 12 cars an hour out of the airport.

The difference in ridership would be the difference between having a mass transit stop at a major national airport, and not having a mass transit stop at a major national airport. Right now, there is no link no matter how much people want to believe there is. A bus route that takes you a few miles to a train station might as well not exist. You cannot base projected ridership based off of something that is insanely inconvenient.

Many travelers coming from other cities with stronger mass transit culture would not think twice about taking a DIRECT train link from the airport to the city center or other nearby destination if it is an easy get on/get off situation. A traveler from NYC, SFO, ORD, SEA, BOS, DC, etc. who uses mass transit at home would be very likely to use a direct train connection to their hotel or event Downtown.

On top of all of this, a direct airport/DART rail link will strengthen the system overall and be a net positive in our goal to have a higher mass transit use, and take some cars off the road. Most cities with successful mass transit have at some point connected their airports to the overall rail system. It's not rocket science on why that would be a net positive.

Another road link to the terminal, especially one that has to tunnel UNDER active runways sounds like a massively expensive endeavor that further serves making everything as convenient as possible for automobile owners, future public transit be damned. Therefore, I would not be surprised if it happened but I am NEVER surprised when our city leaders make a shortsighted and backwards decision.

Hannibal Lecter wrote:Is there any evidence that adding a people mover is going to increase usage? I'm not even talking about increasing it enough to justify the cost -- that's beyond pie-in-the-sky. Let's be realistic: how many people are there really who don't rider DART to Love Field now that would start just because there was a people mover?

Here's something to keep in mind: The latest numbers I can find show the Inwood station with an average daily ridership of 393 (those numbers are pretty old, but are probably on the high side since rail system ridership has declined since them). Let's be generous and say that 75% of those are going to the airport (unlikely). That's roughly 300 people per day, or less than 30 an hour. At an average of 2 people/car, that's about 12 cars/hour that aren't going to Love Field because of the rail system.

So if you spend $100 million on a people mover to double the number of folks using rail to get to Love Field, you're at best taking 12 cars an hour out of the airport.

How many SW airlines staff travel between Love Field and it’s headquarters daily? I bet more than 300 a day! Can you imagine the time wasted on the clock they consume traveling from one parking garage to another through at least two different red lights, over a mile In distance once, twice, possibly more times a day?I’d suggested this before, a continuous moving sidewalk in an underground tunnel would suffice as it would eliminate waiting at both ends. Just step on and off at either ends.

SWA has two employee shuttles that run to each side of headquarters. It is a very popular shuttle since it allows employees to park for free when they travel. This doesn't include the large buses of people who fly in for new hire training there.

The shuttles are well known to always be late and can be packed at times.

In addition to being massively expensive the “Love is growing we need more road capacity” argument is short sighted.

While, yes, following the WA revision in 2014 Southwest completely reengineered the network from Love, and over the following 18 months traffic boomed. However, that trend will not continue.

Due to the gate cap Southwest effectively cannot add more flights, they can’t push gate utilization higher, and they’ve retired all of the lower-capacity Classics from of the fleet. Any future increases at DAL will only come from the marginally larger MAX aircraft and if Southwest pushed Alaska out completely or if AS reverted to mainline service from regional.

High level though - investing large sums of money in roads to and from Love (as a North entrance would be) does not make sense as it is not going to grow materially in the near future.

flyswatter wrote:SWA has two employee shuttles that run to each side of headquarters. It is a very popular shuttle since it allows employees to park for free when they travel. This doesn't include the large buses of people who fly in for new hire training there.

The shuttles are well known to always be late and can be packed at times.

Southwest reduced the frequency of the shuttles a couple years ago because their own lots were filling up from all the flight crew's vehicles being left for multiple days and the 9-5 HQ staff had no where to park. They made a deliberate decision to make the shuttle less convenient so flight crews and weekend travelers would get to the airport another way (some still park at HQ then Uber, but still).

That issue may be reduced now that they have a new garage and construction is complete, but I still can't see Southwest signing on to spend a bunch of money on something that would make it easier for their employees to park at HQ when flying out of Love. They've already gone into cost-control mode by freezing new hiring and word on the street is they've hit some major roadblocks with their Hawaii expansion. Their employees & customers will pay whatever they have to for parking at Love, and like PonyUp said, the airport is pretty well maxed (heh) out as far as flights.

Tunneling a moving sidewalk from the terminal to the train station and SW HQ would be the quickest route, but I still prefer an elevated people mover. Elevated with big windows so people get a good look at the Dallas Skyline, whooped around the runway with a Mockingbird @ Denton Drive so that retail strip is super-charged by airport activities.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I say we just loop the whole airport and add drop off stations on at least 3 sides of the airport's external roads. They just keep looping and passing into the terminal area and back around. Since we are throwing the kitchen sinks worth of ideas out there.

Don't get caught up in the Korea vs Japan eternal silly Dokdo/Takeshima Island arguments (which is what this Nikkei article is really about). This Japanese article erroneously makes it seem like Korea is ending their train service to Incheon Airport.... but that's not true and this is probably just conservative Japanese rhetoric.

No, Seoul is not ending train service to Incheon Airport. The KTX trains are ending, but the AREX (Airport Rail Express) will continue as normal. The KTX trains are longer distance, high speed national rail more like Amtrak Acela, and the AREX trains are more like DART (connect Seoul to Incheon Airport). The AREX will of course continue, and is cheaper and takes the exact same amount of time as the KTX because the KTX trains cannot go high speed on the AREX tracks which they share. AREX trains are very popular.

I've been on these AREX/KTX trains to Incheon multiple times, and they blast Dokdo Island/Takeshima propaganda nearly the entire ride. Very disturbing and annoying. For those who don't know, Dokdo/Takeshima are some very small, insignificant islands that Japan and Korea both claim and both countries act like children with silly propaganda nonstop.

For awhile, Dallas drivers on I-35 could be treated to this lovely billboard around Royal and 35:

tamtagon wrote:Tunneling a moving sidewalk from the terminal to the train station and SW HQ would be the quickest route, but I still prefer an elevated people mover. Elevated with big windows so people get a good look at the Dallas Skyline, whooped around the runway with a Mockingbird @ Denton Drive so that retail strip is super-charged by airport activities.

The trouble with an elevated people mover going around the western runway would be the FAA. There is a reason why DART spent more building the Green/Orange Lines under Mockingbird vs building over it, the FAA! If the FAA wouldn’t allow an elevated light rail line at the end of the runway why do you think they will allow an elevated people mover there?I suggest they wouldn’t.